Scholar

A major reason why Bernardo defines the external world as a mental state is because there is no reason, under the principles of philosophy, to assume that there is a second ontological category that is somehow different than the "mental". This notion to me is in a way correct, but it truly confuses a deeper point about the nature of ontology in the first place. The reason why the idealist calls reality fundamentally mental is because that which he has access to, which he defines as his experience, is something he labels as mental. The "mental" or "mind" is in that way a construct that stands in opposition to what is consider externality. Once you collapse the inner and external in an ontological sense, the term "mental" loses all it's meaning. Whatever it's qualities would be, would actually just be qualities of reality. But there is a more important point here, in that somehow Kastrup believes that even what he considers the "mental", meaning his own mind, is a singular ontological category. In essence this can be said to be true, given that ontology just equivalent to existence, but it overlooks reality about "mind" that leads to the recognition of Infinity. The ontology of colors, of blueness, is as different in it's nature from the ontology of sound, or the chirping of a bird, could possibly be. They are entirely different ontological categories. They are literally impossibly dissimilar. No two things in all of existence could be more dissimilar to each other than sound and color is. To call them mental is meaningless, because all that mental means is "of existence" or "existing". Ontology is existence, and the existence of redness is utterly foreign and unequal to the existence of the chirping of a bird. Both are existence, but they are not a "type" of existence. Redness is not mental. Redness is precisely one thing: Redness. It is irreducable. It is no other category than that, it is itself. Every concept that you project upon it is not Redness. So when an Idealist says the external world is mental, all that could possibly mean is that the external world is "of existence". What kind of existence it is, that is unknowable, as unknowable as colors are to a blind person. Why is this so essential? It is essential because if you truly realize the utter dissimilarity of the ontology between redness and the chirping of a bird, you will immediately realize the radical nature of Infinity, and the radical nature of Existence. Any propositional explanation of reality will immediately be recognized to be absurd, Redness cannot be explained by anything. It cannot be explained by any account of the mind, any account of physicality, any account of anything that one could possibly understand or think about. The nature and existence of redness can only be accounted for in one way: In itself. Redness is completely and utterly self-justifying, self-asserting. It is Absolute. The only thing that could allow for Redness to exist is Absolute Infinity, because it will contain Redness, it will contain all things. Every ontological category which you call a sense, namely colors, sounds, concepts, feelings, temperature-perception. They are not mental, they are themselves. There are Infinite such ontological "categories", each infinitely and absolutely foreign to one another. Each of them indescribable, irreducable. When we speak of the mind, we simply speak of existence, of reality. To call it mind is a remnant of dualism, which labels externality and internality as opposed to one another, as mental against physical. But this is a confusion, because reality simply is infinity. It is ontologically infinitely diverse. There are not two ontological category, but endless categories of them. But each of them, in a sense, are ontologically equivalent, given they are all simply existence, which means they are themselves (self-affirming existence or substance). When it is said that something "feels" like something, all that really means is that something exists. That's literally it. The issue is that the human mind confuses predictive notions about reality with the ontological notions. So it employs the notions of "feeling" as they relate in terms ot metacognition to a function of survival. Nothing is felt, it simply exists. The projection of the "it is felt" notion has it's purpose in that it focuses the notion of "reality" onto externility focused reality modeling. So the model of the physical world is given primacy, in the way it's illusion is consistent. The physical world doesn't change, the body and it's needs do change all the time. So, changing things are defined as "feeling", and unchanging things are defined as reality (external world). When individuals take psychedelics, the usually stable "existence" of the physical world model suddenly, for the first time, dissolves, and is shown to be as fleeting as what is considered other "feelings". But what is actually happening is that reality is fleeting and fluid in that way. Reality can give existence to redness, and then give existence to something else. It is infinite, it can do anything, of course. However, that does not change that the ontology of all those things simply are themselves, they could not be anything other than themselves.

Psychedelics can help with this.

But then it's not infinite.

Right but this means that hell exists and infinite torture of infinite beings for all of eternity with no return to the Godhead must exist.

God as defined as existence. It will just be denied that God has the properties that you attribute to him, namely Love, Intelligence and so forth. Can God choose not to create eternal separation and suffering? Would that not deny his Infinitude?

I am assuming you're an american. You guys are naive and gullible in a way that is just awe-inspiring in it's horror. He isn't saying this out of compassion, but because he knows this will appeal to people like yourself. Because you are easily manipulated, easily fooled. This post undermines every single thing you have ever said on this forum in how profoundly it recontextualizes your intelligence.

In this conversaiton, around the chapter "Defining Happiness", the individual from the Research Institute for Qualia makes the point that a world in which all of us existed in a simulation which stimulated our "Well-being" neurons would be a good world, that such a world is desirable. This view is justified through a certain view of what Meaning is. It is stated that we seek Meaning because it provides us with a positive mental state, so in the end, if you changed the agent such that you stimulate that state directly, they would be perfectly satisfied, and on the contrary, perfectly unsatisfied and feel deeply meaningless due to the stimulation of that area of the brain. All of this is true, however, the conclusion that then follows from this, that a world in which we did nothing but stimulate our meaningcenters to be blissfully meaningful, is a good world, is where the researcher plays a little utilitarian trick on us. It's an assumption that just because this is how the human mind works, it is therefore desirable to maximize that which the human mind seeks. And this assumption is false because it neglects the very reason for why things are sought, and that is ones own nature. It is ones nature that determines what one finds meaningful and what one finds not meaningful. It is trivial to say that, by adjusting ones nature, one is therefore also adjusting what will give one the experience of meaning and pleasure. If I changed your brain to enjoy and find deeply meaningful the torture children, then that is of course what you would find deeply meaningful. But there is no "ought" in the universe that tells us that positive sensation must be maximized, and that such a world would be desirable or good. The universe moves completely outside of the need for pleasure. Atoms move, evolution moves, and the human mind moves, without the necessary presence of pleasure at the end of that motion. And that is because of the nature of reality, which is what determines the motion of all things in the first place. The human mind does move towards pleasure, but it also moves towards other things as they relate towards it's own nature. And there is a deep metaphysical blindspot here, in that the utilitarian assumes that because the nature of the human mind is such that it inevitably is pulled towards positive states and pushed away from negative states, that therefore the world ought to be structured under the maxim of hedonism, because that is what the human mind does anyways. The conclusion of this view is that a world ought to be created devoid of nature, that the positive state in of it self ought to be maximized, even if it contradicts our nature. But that is not the purpose of the universe. The universe's purpose is found in it's complete nature, in the motion of every atom. In that way the human nature is an extention of Divine nature. The "meaning" of life is life itself, exactly as it is, and exactly as it will transform itself. It is self-justifying. What this means is that hedonism is not the inevitable conclusion of evolution, as is assumed by the researcher. He believes if human beings were maximally rational, that they would inevitably conclude that pure hedonism is the logical way of expression, the path of least resistance and therefore the way reality will express itself. But reality will not express itself bound by some false, logical maxim he established, but instead by the nature of what it is. The way humanity will express itself will relate to it's nature, and in that way, if we find the idea of simply sitting in a soup of pleasure until the heat-death of universe occurs as meaningless, then that is not how we will express ourselves. There is something far deeper transpiring here that goes beyond mere human nature, beyond mere, simplistic psychological accounts. The mistake committed here is that one has assume that the nature of the human mind is to seek pleasure, rather than part of the nature of the human mind being that it is pulled towards pleasure, and that positives states are a foundational way in which our nature fulfills itself. But the nature is what is fundamental, as a complete phenomenon. Especially on a collective level it will not be reducible to a simple hedonistic account of the brain. This does not mean that the hedonistic server farm is not the end-point of this civilization. It could be, who knows. The point is that the nature of the universe is far deeper than that. Evolution dictates that, even if 999 out of 1000 civilizations become hedonistic server farms, one of them will continue in a way that explores the infinity of reality in a different way, just by the nature of random expression (which is the only way infinity can fully discover itself). There are more superficial points to be made, in relation to the impossibility of transcending ones own nature completely (by adjusting ones nature one will eventually lose the very drive that sought the adjustment, meaning the maintaining of the adjustment requires stability, which requires a rigidity in ones own nature, which translates into ignorance), but that would be for another conversation.

Jesus didn't exist in the way you think he did. If you do believe such nonsensical fairy tales, how can you expect to be truthful? He is a story, a story that was turned into a system of control by the roman empire. That's all Christianity fundamentally is. The perverse nature of religions like Christianity is that they take the gift of the Kingdom of Heaven and sell it to you for gold to enrich themselves. You don't need the pope, the catholic church, or these religious systems to take what is within you.

This is exactly what is going on in China as we speak. It's just stage blue nationalism. There are chinese scientists who make the case that mankind originated from China rather than africa. It's similar to how the Russian nationalists will claim that ancient greece was a product of russian culture. It gives legitimacy to imperialistic and superiority thinking.

Bro what is going on with these nazis. They are talking about racism as if it was some sort diet trend, calling it "being racial". It's like some sort of skit, how is this even real.

You don't get to lock a thread because you don't enjoy being confronted with the truth.

If I talked to a nazi from germany during the holocaust, I would not take his opinion seriously, especially if he was as blatant in his ignorance as you are. The fact that you are native makes you more bias, not less. It makes you more prone to delusion and self-deception, and less informed given you have a clear identity build around the idea that this regime is something that you want it to be. This is just self-deception.

You self-serving lies and delusions will bring nothing but suffering.

You are delusional.

Ah yes, that has aged so well.